If there was a Farseer Film...?

[TheBlueFool]

Originally Posted by jackokent

I'd be devestated if they made this into a film but if they did I always imagine the Fitz as a sort of Ray Winston or maybe the way Bruce Willis was in 12 monkeys - sort of tragic and hard done by, but roughtytufty at the same time.

The fool would be harder I think - Maybe a girl would be better.

And as for Molly, I can't think of anyone annoying enough - possibly Jade Goody

lmao @ the part about Molly

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Teir

No one could play the parts in a way which would satisfy me *shrug* I think I'd cry if a film was made,lol, it would never do the books justice. I'd have to see it though...one of those things you cant help but look at...like puppies on train tracks *grin*

I totally agree. No move would do the books justice. I dont think i know of any books-made-movie that have left me satisfied. Espesially Eragon, It was a decent book but the movie was terrible.

[TheBlueFool]

Originally Posted by The Fool

I totally agree. No move would do the books justice. I dont think i know of any books-made-movie that have left me satisfied. Espesially Eragon, It was a decent book but the movie was terrible.

Oh god yeah that movie was so so bad

[tawnylyra]

Honestly I probably wouldn't like it if these books were made into a movie (movies, series), once a book is made into a movie then whenever I reread it (which I will if its one of my favorites, which the Hobb books are), I can't picture them as anything but the actors who played them. That's fine unless the person that was cast for the part didn't fit my personal image for the character at all, then it's just disconcerting.

If it WAS made into a movie though, I agree Tilda Swinton would work for the Fool possibly (although I don't think anyone could pull it off very well). Also oddly enough my high school science teacher would be a good Fool, he reminded me of him as soon as I read the Farseer trilogy. He's very tall and lanky, very witty, extremely strange, and was prone to jumping around the classroom for no apparent reason. Although he isn’t very feminine . . . but he’s certainly not masculine either. I honestly don’t think he grows facial hair, at all. And he always wears one small earring, plus he never ate with the teachers at lunch, was always sort of off on his own. I don’t know, he just really reminded me/reminds me of the Fool.

When thinking of actors who would play the parts well/or look like the characters nobody came to mind right away except for Joaquin Phenonix as Regal. I mean look at his job in Gladiator as Commodus! He was so creepy and realistic in that film that it took me years to warm up to the actor afterwards. He did almost too good of a job, I kept thinking of him as Commodus. Eventually I got over it and he’s now one of my favorite actors. I think he even looks like Regal, or at least what I picture him as.

[Ice fyre]

I have to agree with the last post, you know I never thought Joaquin for that role but now he is mentioned.....

Well he at least he wasnt bogging as Commodus (ok thats maybe a rather brittish one that, bog/toilet/commode? No? Ok will stop the bad jokes now!)

[Flaidd]

Okay, I've been reading through this thread, and I finally decided to post, because if I didn't get a chance to weigh in on this, I would burst.

Forget Fitz, or Verity, or all those "main and important characters".

Being a bit of a character actor myself, I always get really wrapped up in character parts... supporting actors and the like.

My favourite character in Farseer has to be... Burrich. Yeah, yeah... I know. But there was something that touched me about him while reading the books. He reminds me of my Dad, I guess. A deep and emotional man, who has choked back his emotions for the "good" of his family (adopted son, in Burrich's case).

When I was reading, I always pictured Burrich as Henry Rollins. Gruff, surly, but with a heart of gold, a good head on his shoulders, and the ability to completely lose it if he needed to.

[Serin]

Do you know something Flaidd, you're right. Had to look up Henry Rollins, but looking at him and reading about him, he does fit the bill as Burrich.

[CLAWS]

A movie wouldnt be able to do the stories any justice.

A series however.... that sounds much more feasible. What do we have at present on TV - LOST, Heroes and Robin Hood. The Farseer Trilogy would pan out quite well if a series was made in a similar fashion to how these are made.

You wouldnt have to have major major special effects or major gore, but just enough to whet the appetite so to speak. A typical example is the type of violence portrayed in Heroes i.e. Sylar cutting someones head open, Claire regenerating from 3rd degree burns/50ft drop/being shot etc.

It can be done I reckon, in a series. Not a movie.

[Flaidd]

Apparently, HBO is in talks with George R.R. Martin to do this very thing... a multi-season television deal to put A Song of Ice and Fire on screen.

Of course, aSoIaF would probably have a treatment a little closer to HBO's earlier Rome than any treatment of The Farseer Trilogy could have.

Unless, of course, the screenwriters decided to throw some gratuitous explicit sex or violence into Farseer to bump up ratings. (Hot Burrich-on-Molly action, anyone?) Don't get me wrong, I loved Rome, but I think that a lot of the lurid material in that show could have been HEAVILY toned down without losing any of the plot at all. I mean, we get it... ancient Romans had very, very different ideas on ethics and morals than we do in the modern world... unfortunately, I think this was used by HBO/BBC as an excuse to bump up the ratings.

I fear that HBO's treatment of aSoIaF would fall victim to the same problem. There is so much opportunity for lurid content in Martin's work (which in the written form is only hinted at, but could be exploited by unscrupulous screenwriters in the translation to TV) that I don't think the producers could resist going for the ratings grab. Especially in the post-Sopranos world. ("Don't Stop Believin'" my fat, spotty ass.)

I'm not a big fan of aSoIaF to begin with... but I respect George Martin and I definitely see it as a project worth doing properly (even if I, for one, won't be watching). I just worry that when modern corporate Hollywood gets their hands on something, it begins to be bled dry in the name of the hallowed dollar/pound/euro/sheckel/ducat/etc. etc. etc.

I mean, even The Lord of the Rings films, while they were (in my opinion) the best cinematic accounting which could be made of Tolkien's original vision, were extremely shallow compared to the source material. The medium of cinema just isn't well-suited to the subtleties and complexities of the written word.

In short... I'd rather have my imagination tell me what The Fool looks like... not some artless Hollywood casting director who is looking for a name to put on a marquee.

I do think that the episodic TV treatment would be the only way to do Farseer on screen... and I think that I could only trust the BBC to do it properly. The Big Three (NBC, CBS, ABC), while they could keep a lid on the explicit content, would also pollute the thing with so many commercial breaks as to render it nearly unwatchable. The BBC has the wherewithal and the clout to make the damn thing mature but not trashy, while keeping the bloody adverts out.

Burrich tearfully draws Fitz from his grave. "You're not dead... you're not dead..." he says. Cut away to an advert for Viagra...

Of course, I hope it never happens. Mainly because I know they won't cast Henry Rollins as Burrich.

Sorry for the rant, but I have recently re-read The Lord of the Rings, followed by a watching of all 12-hours of the extended editions, and been deeply disappointed with myself for how badly I allowed those films to pervert my view of the original work.

[edit: corrected the channel that aSoIaF is appearing on... it's HBO, not Showtime. A stay of execution, but not a full pardon.]

[Serin]

Well put Flaidd, I have to agree with all that you have said. I certainly would not want The Farseer Trilogy to be screened any different than how it is written in the books. I guess the adaptation would depend on the director, but with things the way they are now, I think that I like the idea of the story and characters staying in my imagination, too.

[Tickle]

I wouldn't mind this becoming a mini series, as long as they portray Fitz and Nighteyes exactly as they are in the book. As for who I think would be good hmmmm............ let's see

Fitz - I could see Joaquim Phoenix as the older Fitz (Tom Badgerlock - The scar on his lip would fit in to Fitz's past torture, while still maintaining his looks somewhat) based on his character in The Village. He could pull off the range or emotion or lack there of.

Young Fitz - A Newcomer would be good.

Fool - I also agree that Tilda Swinton could play this. Anyone who has seen Constintine will know what I'm talking about (she played the male Angel Gabriel and seemed both male and female)

Molly - Anne Hathaway (I just like her)

Burrich - This one is hard?? I don't know!!!!! I can see John Travolta or Kevin Spacey here.

Chade - Tommy Flanagan

Verity or Regal - Viggo Mortensen - He has the bearing to be any one of these characters.

That is all I can think of for now.